Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN K y 1, 1939 Honorable Basoom Glles Land Comds s loner Austin, Texss ter rclLing proper ~r~plloatian to for the 6axYoy, dtun 6%xQ e OS aitht&3lw rtmmt pzo~isfen6 or dlsotion 5 of *he above mentioned aat are as ilollowrl *Any one dealring to bw ruif of the ussurveyed land inolmded in this Aat SLit situated r1thl.n fin pri;Lerr of a proboing 011 Of &68 ws~ 6h63.1 i%bViti the oouuty sarve)rorof the aQIuitJln whiah tka tad may be sitnated, an appIleat$on for survey d666rtb@3 Hon. Bascom'Giles, Xay 1, 1939, Page 2 -. ‘. the land in such manner as will enable the surveyor to identify it and pay the surveyor a fee of One Dollar ($1.00) for filing and recording said appli- cation and also deposit with him 6uoh sum of money a6 will pay for citing the olalmant or olaimants of the land, if any, and the adjoining owners as the tax rolls may dlsolbesethe names of snoh claimants or adjoining OWPer6. The surveyor using the Sorms pre- scribed .bythe General Land OSfloe, &all -lately send by rsgietered ill or hand to oeoh ~olaimanf or adjoin- owner a oltatioa oontalnlng a de6otiption of the land 6ma@tfo k atnve~Od~am:t~xa'dak ror mtrvey. The survey t&all bs~bt@'.and.th6 Held-~ note6 filed In the Land Offia``wbthldime'hmt&r&and- 3wenty (lzo) dap from the ruinga* appU0atfim with the .mtrYepr. ri.thO -6: isSouud’by.;fb oar-‘, ri6610aor to be pn6UrYa)ad ahd aM#je& .tai 86lo; W . shall value the laad and ``i:tlOo~:$f~;*hbi v&Utiti~- &jj** appl~oMt * m, ~6~&'~.*'!~Md'~op:`` ~#aie‘~ texm and oondltlans a6 pr06orlbedAy the lti%&&%he re@atSqim for the .aale~of:~aurv~-~Ugd`` z?Yfg+,. if~the mred :rhtml+ b6 Sq ~the~enol0mny ai ano.``.~T::. pemda 0laSal.q it’ in (load faith, %w! ~wcupisd ~:a6,.a home.by anoth0r'6Mh holdq OT ooriapat.?hallhpn a~ pnroronge ri&t tar a ~$eriodot dstr’ C60) :daw %ttar. service or ditdtioa to have the land mrvewed emhi own applloatloato the aurvemr and @p.u1I,return of the 6ttp advaaoed bY -ths``ril%t..flDD~titit.fOr Oitllthll. and thera~.iir~k$s right to ikohasd"a6 husk Dti- videa, aad in oa6es where 6 siurvey has ,been mde~ in accordaaoe with Article 582S. BeY%tWd :Olvil Safute6 of 1926, and the rield ~mte6~r6turnml to the .%6a& Offloe prior to August 10, lSa9, the Oommlsal.onerS.8 authtml6ed and required to examin %ho risl+ n&e6 and lf fouad to be correot amI the land subjeot to,mle, he shall valpb the 6am6 sad give aot%ee of 6uoh ralga- tion to the ap$i0ant, and In eaaea where the field notes had been approved and the .lapd ralRed.and th0 eppllaant railed to file hi8 applloation ln thq Lsnd Orrloe rlor to August x6, 192W,,h0 may do a0 Withi% 90) da- ninety 'I from the passa@ or thf6 Aot 6a6 ICI- oelre an 6uard. AL1 applloetloaa to puxwhese, axoept where otherwise prOvlded,.mu6t be filed~in th0 Oeneral Land 0rrloe~wfthi.n elxty 460) daya rrclatha date or the notice or valuation.* ~ We appreclste, as St&ti..&L& ZmW+eT, the+Tihe Hon. Eaacom Glles, Uloy1, 193Q8, Feea 9 .J-. by the naCe6Iiityof our courts hcvlq EpWZtS,t3E i-iitaessri: to CORstruc it. See ~:lnt.smannv. iicDooald,102 5. Yd. (2) (uupubli&ed opinion by Supraae Codrt 05 Texes); Crl&ton Y. State (unpublished opinion by Third Court of CIVIL Appeala). "e ahell herein refer to the one claitine the land under enolo6ure or oocuple~ as e home a6 -0ooupaat”. Ia oon6tralugthe above 6tsOuta to datersbe tim tim ri~u~ohthr000``$rsy~hMt$O``~6 tot&land oiiieb vflthoutforfo%tureof hi8 preferawe rfght Oa pur0h660 the lumd, w 0611 ltt+ntlonto t&a itmdmntal priac$pleio thm ~O~U~SUC``OSI Of 8t&UtO6 thdb fOyiOmI%W (uy t0 h6 SwOttf OoMtYuoa end the 8tetuta rlll be 80 interpreted 66 to~.preYeat, ntharth8naaube,aforie$ture. plhraourta are nlmatast-to * doolaF@ ,ead enioroe iorfeiturm ii by a ma6onablo lhterpn- hatloaSha7 eg be avoldod. a00 1B Tu, ~Jrr.TOO, seotion 4. There are r00r po*aible'eou6truatione 0s tho above St&U$e 66 bo the tiru whoa the fi.ld Id06 &Mt be SilOa in the uuka oirtaa a6 iollmmi 1. o'ithia50 dry6 trap tha 5ate Shat Oitafiolr%a 6orved -88 t&e ocaupaat. Within lS!Odry6frox the date'tlieapgl$aat$on$8 S%lod & & or$+kal appllaant. S. witbin UO day6 from ttm d6k the OeOtgwb ffi.6 hir applioatlonfor o mtrv~7. Utvr the data altationla umod upoa the oocupant. The first oon6tructloa, that 161.th* Oao rhleh I-@- qulreathe illins of the field notee ln the Land QNlso WIthin 60 day6 after lervlee of olt6tlcn is, a6 ltnt6d io ;~pttr letter, th6 oonatruotloa that 7our t&ice hma.plaeed upon the statute. %a~ at&a that this aems to be the only praotloal eoMtr&ction for lshe reason that If tho occpgmt la allowed the remmlader or the 180 day period provided for the rir6t appliotnt, or 6 Period or la0 days after seniae 0s oltatl~ in uhloh to rile field n88ea Ln the Larrd off&se, be ocuzd, if he 6i ae6~lre4, 'defeat the rieht60s tho rtr6o applloant By not e%la the '*irat applioant any time 6iOer earrise of oi8atlerr ulthla the Hon. Easoom Giles, May 1, 1939, Page 4 120 day period allowed to the first applioant to have a survey made and field notes returned to the Land Ofrioa. Ke are Unable to agree with this oonetruotion. The statute provides that If the area ahould be within tha 8llC1Osl3reOr another person 8tO., "8Uoh holder or oobupant shall have a prererenoe right ror a period of sixty (so) days after service or citation to have the land sUl?v&yed on his own applloatlon to the 8urveyorn. It ie Botioed that the oooupant may wait for a porlob or 60 daye.after 88nlo8 OS oltatlon "to here the land roneyed on his own eppllaation W the surveyor*. l'hlr do88 not state that h8 pmet have the ilsld not88 returned fo the Land Orrloe within the 60 day’,, period, but it 1s indfo8t8d that'he nest have the lard '~a%~. " veTed within 60 day8. We b8liere. however, that the 8tetut8' i8 IlOt 8W3Oaptib&P Of the IdOt OOB8tZ'IlOtiOBthat the StUVq muat be nmde~withf&,Q0 daya 888 we em to ooB8trge the' StetUte es raquir % 8h8 .m$ of the field note&to the -,. '. ~.LeudOff100 withinT- 0 day+ ~&beUwo~thet'lt 44 the lad ._ .t,OBtiOBOr the Ld 18-t=* that after,RB ~OOU@llt 18.88IVOd ~tith OitatiOB ho f.8 giv8n a period 08 60,days t?,d8ternine whether he derrire6 to parohaw the land. The oooupant i8 olelmlng tLtl8 to the 18nd end w8 belleve that .lt #a %he -tite~tloB:of~ .the etetuto to all033 him a period or 8lxfq daya $0 make an ln-; ~+d8tigEttiOBaOd probably adC8 M inQep~!Jd83&t85W?VOy'fO.df#tU’dllb ``thei-he ~abtri&SlfVomu th6 laod and~thsn46uide'whSth8r ha .&i%&l:' (a)-ptmh888 the land &%melf, (b)-OOStO8t the title of tb,Stete, or (0) allm'tho orig~.ep2l~loant'f``~o~e tbb'$iurohaser'with~ut a ooritedt: A period at .8lxt~ 6ay8 18 not a unreeaanable the to-aLTow the OOCt@aBt to deold? wh?ah OOUlF80 he rill pOr8qP, 88 any deOf8iOB he might maoh . v&l1 lnvolv8 expen8e 9 ooneultiag ma attorn8r or e 8turepr, ?T both, a8 well arhpurohase prioe to ba paid to the ?tate for the lend. If he 8hotid decide within the 8iZt7 ‘dar period to purohaae #ihe lard and file hi8 applioetion for a surrey with the DountpSUrvuyor, why should he not then be plaoed In the.eam8 poaitlon es the original appl.toant. We oan 8ee no roa8on for roqulring the oooupant to return field note8 to the Land Qriioe within a 8horter period of time than that required of the original apglioant. The argument edvanoed by you 18 that if thi8 OozWXUot&in iS nOti plaoed on the 8tafUte, it would allow fhe.oooupaBt to .deprlre the original applfoant of hi8 right to purohase the lend. But woh i8 sot the neoeseary remelt. Let u8 say, f'aF exqle, that th8 rrlginal epplioant.has illed his epplloetiQn with th8 OoWty mrvsycr on runuary 18t. Under tha 8tatrtte the -original spplioant muat have the field note8 retqrmd to the LaBd of- Floe wIthin lg0 dsys or,May lat. Let Us SUDi?Oaa thn*, *ha 25i : .. i .gq Hon. E6scom C.iles,May 1, 1939, Page 5 surveyor issues citatior and fixes AI;:.%15th as the date for a survey and further suppose that the occupant Is not served with citation until Yaroh 15th. Under these oondi- tions, as provided by the etatute, the occupant would hare 60 days rrom March 15th, or until May 15th. to hare the land surveyed on his applloatlon, whereas the original applioant must have the field notes in the Land offiC8 by May let. We five this example to show that it la untenable to argue that the oacupant has only 00 day8 within whioh to file f181dB notes in the Land 0irioe ln or&r to prevent hir fro- inter- ierlng with the rights or theoriginal applleanti The es enqple-may b8 8o8ewhet eztreae, but it 18 pollslble tender th8, 8tatUt.e. 8iBOS EO tfre l=t 18 6Ot iOr 8eNiUe Of th8dttitiOit or for a 6uNey, eraopt that the field note8 musit be returned. to &he Land orriae dthin 120 d8y8, The 8tatnte, after 8tetiBg what the~oooupent lai required to do, fartlmr provides that by 6ohg oertt&i aqtg, he shall "th8raapOB fir hi8 right to puruheee a8 heretiu,,ye- Tided*. What is m&Wit br the wOrda, 'right TV pumhabe 2x8, herelh provided*? We believe that it meahe -filing hi8 epplloetion with the oounty 88rveyor nlfMn.60 daya fxw &he date that he ia 8eIWd with a aitatian: &.opinion i?o.O+CjS by thl8 Department; dated ltareh 6# %999, w.tmld that the ~' .~ riling 0r an eppli~atton for a~nyreywlt&tbA~OMfj 8~pvayr+- iires-thc-right to purohase br taHag the aabeeqaent'atepa reqalmd by the statute. Bee, dlSa, *lgkton v* Etai& fun-. pttbll8hed opfnlon of the 3rd Ootlrf of Olrll Appeal8 aa A?rll '26, lOSO). xt is our opinion; thsrofom, that the OW.3UpMt 18 not requirea to file fieia not88 In t&4 Iand Offloe wlthfn 60 day8 from th8 date oitation 18 8ensd upen him. The next oon6trnotloB, that 18 that the tfeld note8 mu8t be returned within 120 d8y8 from the date the epplioetion is filed by the original eppliaant, 18 not, in Ouropinion, aorreot. In the rirt3t place, me oen 800 ILQ reason, a8 alreeay stated, why the oocupant 8hOuld here less time to file field notes In the Land Off108 than th.at given to the original appli- oant. The occupant haa, e8 alr'kedy evresaed by U8, 60 day8 after the service 0r oltetlon In whlo.$ to rile an application ror a surrey. Ii the original appiioant 18 given 120 day8 after the date of the tiling of the epplioation with the 8tlrTeyor to ffi8 rieia notes in th8~Land orfiee, we 898 no reason w4 the 8``3nelength of tine should not be given to the oooupant. Hon. Easoom Giles, Kay 1, 1939, Pace 6 In short, it Gppears to be the Intention of th8 stetute that the applicant to purchase is all=aed 120 days from the dete or the filing Or his application within which to rii8 field natea in the Land Office. i;'e b8lfeY8 thet the third construction, that is, tha field notes must be filed in the Land Office within 120 day8 rrom the date the oocupant riles MS appllostlon, 18 the oorreot one. Our reasons for this view have already been expreesed. If, however, we are mistaken in holdlnp.that the oooupant he8 120 day8 rrom the date of the ruing or hi8 eppli- oetion within whloh to 1lle field note8 In th& Lwxd Qtiioe, then we a6k what 18 the time llmlt? U the time llult 18 not 180 day8 icoln either the date of the epplloetion,by the orlglnel 1 applloaat or thd date of the flllug OS the oooupant'4 4pplleaflon, and If we er8 oorreot In our oontenttonthet the 60 d4``8rl4d 18 only the time limit ror flllng the 8ppll48tlon, anilnot th6 return or the Slela note8 to th6 Land gffloe, tlmn th6 8tatqte doe8 Bot fix W time limit wh8tever tor the retu.rB at field l no tes to th e .OSflee. fn 8uoh oace, the foorth'aorurtruation Lend would be the proper oonrtruotion, that 18 thqfleld @ok8 taey be filed within a reesoMb~4 time after o~t48lon 18 8erred upon the OoougeBt. Thl8 oonrrtruotlon 18 boine out by the reoent Wkpubll8h4d daol8lon Or the 8rd 00~1% 0?+0lvir Ap agil8 in 8hO ea8e of Crlghtony. State, mmdered dn April Bd, foso, : PI that aa8e the oourt had tier oorulderation th8 que?tlon.Ot the tlae for tlllng lu the L8n&``fflae the field netea.onder aa a$ l$.eetioB 1 $0 lee84 under SeOblOn’S of the 88me A4t under 44Wld4ra 14a. g~;p~Bdoea not 8tete Aha time within whloh-fieldnotes atmb .' Md4 that the The eotttetttlon 11(18 plW181OtUt oi 8eotlon i OS the eat pertainln& to the purohase of land, whleh require8 flsld n4~48 to be filed wlthln 120 dq8 from the date ~Ae&~llaatlon wa8 illed with the oouuty 8urvemr. rrhottld The oour't, however, rejeoted this OeBteBtiOB4Bd held that ;iBOe 848tiOB 8 or.the 6Ot We8 8ibBt With XVtOWOe t0 thei time of flllBg field note8 in th4~Iand Offioe, th6 proviclio~8 of Seotlon 6 would not be read into Seotlcm 8. The omrt 8eidr _ Wile moh oan ba eald from the 8tandpofnt of policy In euppoti or Orlghtonf8 third oontentlon.to the effect that the 120-day pr4vlelon-in Seo. 6 should be read into Sea. 8 of the 1931 Act, vm do not find 8By warrant ror suoh oonstruc&n in the ALot Itnell, whloh expresser the legl8letlve intent. All 8tetOa la Short v’. Carter, ebovet ~lon.I!awom Glle?, 1-ey 1, 1929, i.sro7 *Thus It is zi2psrenttbzt the ik?tis a aom- prehennivu sktute, cuthorizing the sale end the leesInE for alnemls of till unsold publia sahool land bott eurvayed snd unsurveyed, and presarlblng the te.ms and aondltjons of sales and leases. It. is a atatuta aomFlete in itself, eroept that by refsrenoe it incorporates soae of the pravisione of the Revised Civil Itstutea.' *The om.iaolon in Seo. 8 of a tlao linit in whlsh to f%lo ilsld notea in tho Laa6 Off100 8nd it8 a- oltml~n In Seo. 6 cannot be lntorpret8d a8 otlmr thoa uollberat8. It ir h0ral.y to bo aoM6lvo4 that in a matter of thin hportaneo the legislattuu would have left it0 intontlan to 8uraioe 0s ooa~ootu~o when it would hato been M a&p10 to lnoludo a & imt .a 2300. 8, ii it8 porpo80 h0d b0m to do 80. *b8ent a 8takd,t%m8 -for rUti the.rieId not08 -tha goaord Tdo 18 that.8 raa8omblo tiae undm eli the olxvmwtanoosof tho partloular oaae will be impl10d.~ We are not lntenU%ng to hold that Seation 6 6008 not rir a timr malt fbr the ru* or tield aok im tilt0 und OHleo, but merely 8tate thot if we are wrong in our eon- 8tTUOtiCM that the oooupant h88 120 day8 fmathe da* of tha fan Of hi8 applio8tion, wh%oh appl%OiIti~-~8t be ffi@d rlthln 60 day8 fx'omthe dato or tho 8it8tiOrA, than t&or the r\rle8t0t8d illthe,0880 Of Crightoa t. 8tot0, it %8 Otiy 1 qtle8tiOa of whothar the ffleld note8 are $ilotl in the land Oftloo within a ro86onabletlmo aftor tiling by tho oooupaat or applloatlon for a marvoy. fn tho oitaation wlth whlah yen am ooafrontrd, moo 8tato that tbo iield llOh8 wore ril0d ia the Lula Offlae within w5 day8 rma tho bate the oitatSon ~88 8ervul upon th8 ooonp8nt. Thl8, then, mot8 the raqulremeat8 0r 0~ opialoa, a8 Pet oat abtme, if the ooaupant ille8 hi8 applloation with the anneyeT wlthin 8irt.y dayo of the date tbst eftation m8 oorved upon hh. In view or whet we #ii-&mid and al80 in view or the deol8lon in the oaae of Orlghton v. State, it l8 not necessary for us to hold whet&or field n&es must bo illed within 120 day8 from the dsto OS the 8ppliOlatiOSl of the oboa- pant. tie are leaving that quoetion undatermined. We are merely holdinp that ii the rield notes am rued by the OOOU- pant within 120 day8 rrtm the ad0 oi the filing 0r h;l8 Era. Zssconi Ciles, Key 1, 1939, itfe 8 W...,~,. fAp$liChtiOIi, they are flle5 xlthln suf:lclentthe. In this opinion, WQ are not, of ooufsa,attempting to pa8s upon the ~ueetion ae to Aother the oooupzat xentloned by you Is entitled to aeoura e loaae In prefarenoa to tk~ orl&xal a~plloant. There ore feat ques%lone to be dotenalnad, auah as whether the tire& 18 in thu enoloeura of the oocupant olaimlng it, whothor the olair 18 in good faith, or whether tho land %R 000qpfod 88 a &U by hh, Or whothor ha &8 '$roporly ntSUM6 to th0 ?h8t ~#iOUAt th0 8W 8dvanood ior oitatloa. Your0 very arally